According to the C.A.R.M. website, Matt Slick defines Hyper-Calvinism as thus:
The Hyper-Calvinist emphasizes the sovereignty of God to such an extent that man's human responsibility is denied. In actuality, Hyper-Calvinism is a rejection of historic Calvinist thought. Hyper-Calvinism denies that the gospel call applies to all; and/or denies that faith is the duty of every sinner; and/or denies the gospel offer to the non-elect; and/or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal; and/or denies that there is such a thing as "common grace"; and/or denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. Calvinists do not agree with the Hyper-Calvinists.
According to their definition, when I quote Scripture verbatim and ask logical questions to which they are unable to respond, I am automatically labeled a "Hyper-Calvinist." I find it amusing that the more I read and study my Bible and what it has to say for itself, conforming my beliefs accordingly, people start throwing all sorts of accusations my way, calling me a "Calvinist," a "Covenantal Theologian," and now a "Hyper-Calvinist." Funny how when you follow the Bible for what it teaches, you are automatically accused of being a follower of some person or theology you have never heard of.
Years ago, when my beliefs first started changing from Dispensationalism, before I had ever heard of John Calvin or Calvinism, when I shared what I believed and quoted Scripture verbatim, I was suddenly finding myself accused of being a "Calvinist." The more my beliefs started to change and conform to the teachings of Scripture, suddenly I found people accusing me of being a "Covenantal Theologian." Now, I am reading something that accuses me of being a "Hyper-Calvinist."
By the definition given, it would appear that Matt Slick fails to understand Hyper-Calvinism and the Bible. There is a vast difference between "common grace" and "saving grace." Let us get a few things straight here. Is the Gospel call offered to all? Yes and no. Yes, in the fact that we are called to preach the Gospel to all men. Why? Because we do not know which ones will be saved. No, in the fact that it is only applied to Jesus' people (Matt. 1:21; John 10:11, 15; Eph. 5:25). Do all men have the ability to respond to the Gospel call? No, and here is why...
If I am unsaved and someone comes and preaches the Gospel to me... Can I regenerate myself? Can I cause myself to be born again? Can I make myself spiritually alive? Can I fill myself with God's Spirit? Can I replace my heart of stone with a heart of flesh? No! God must change all of those things in order that I may respond to the Gospel call by faith. Faith is a gift from God, so how is faith the duty of every sinner? You cannot express faith until it has been granted to you. Furthermore, if the Gospel call was available to all, and all had the opportunity to respond to it, and God's mercy was universal, then John 6:37 is false: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." The giving precedes the coming. If you were not given to Jesus by God the Father from before the foundations of the world, then you cannot come to Him.
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). Do these verses mean nothing to Matt Slick and C.A.R.M.? According to their definition of Hyper-Calvinism, these verses are also false. Apparently, while not understanding the Bible, Matt Slick also does not understand imputed sin, inherited sin, and personal sin, all of which we are guilty of if God's Gospel call never reaches our ears. Man's responsibility has nothing to do with whether or not he ever hears the Gospel call or whether or not he responds to it. Man's responsibility has to do with the fact that he has broken God's law. By imputed sin, inherited sin, and personal sin.
I am not a Calvinist, nor am I a Hyper-Calvinist. I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus, and while many of my beliefs agree with Reformed Theology, my theological belief system conforms to that which I read in the Scriptures, my Bible. No system of theology is perfect, and I do not subscribe to any particular system of theology or denomination. Where any system of theology disagrees with Scripture, I reject it. That includes Baptist Theology and Reformed Theology. When we hold to these systems blindly and reject clear teachings of the Bible, then we are in error. I strive for my belief system to conform to that which the Bible teaches and to reject all else. I will again quote two of my favourite quotes:
Our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. We have . . .no creed to defend,no denomination to maintain, andno confession to bind our minds."What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern. If the plain teachings of Holy Scripture appear to destroy or contradict our understanding of any doctrine, then let us relinquish the doctrine, or acknowledge the fact that our minds are both depraved and minuscule, and bow to the revelation of God.—Don Fortner
Even though there are none to few definitions in the Bible, Scripture, not any theological definition, is our ultimate authority. Theological definitions must measure up to Scripture, not the other way around. [Emphasis mine.]
—John M. Frame